若是任何艺术作品（例如，电影、文学、雕塑或者歌曲）存在价值，都必须易于大多数人理解。（老218）
1. First consider musical art form. It would be absurd to assert that the objective of music is to challenge the listener's knowledge of music theory. In fact, listening to music is simply an encounter—an experience to be accepted at face value for its aural impact on our spirit and our emotions.
2. Next consider the art forms of painting and sculpture. If the test for meritorious art were its ability to be clearly understood by every observer, then our most valuable art would simply imitate the mundane physical world around us.
3. Finally, consider art forms such as poetry, song, and prose, in certain cases stanzas and verses need not be "understood" to have merit, as much as they need be experienced for the images and emotions they evoke.
少数和多数之艺术价值
艺术作品要有价值，不管是电影、文学还是歌曲，都必须让大多数人能够理解。From kito
Begin: Though the speaker's assertion may have merit, in my opinion, it unfairly generalizes about art.艺术作品的价值与大多数人是否理解是没有关系的，
1. 一个艺术作品只要是作者的真实情感、感受、想法的表达，那它就是有价值的。According to what Freud has said（and I paraphrased） art, in essence, is a kind of release of individual lust, converting the human libido into plentiful creativity. It is through the work of art that artists express their passions, emotions, and desires. From this we can see, art is therefore, first and foremost, concerning with the inner world rather than with the outside one as a whole.
2. 艺术作品不一定需要人们的理解。一方面：因为人们的知识有限，也不是每个人都是心理学家，所以不可能完全揣摸出艺术作品所代表的作者的真实想法，但是只要能够欣赏就足够了。比如：对于某些音乐作品，只要我们听到以后感到很美或者心灵受到撞击，那它就是有价值的。如有些诗，我们不能体会作者的真实意思，但是我们感受得到诗中作者的感情和情趣；另一方面：艺术作品正是因为不容易被理解，才有了见仁见智的感受，才给人想象力，才full of humor and wit,才有价值；"一千个人眼中就有一千个哈姆雷特" hamlet，你能说有谁真正读懂了莎士比亚么？（Shakespeare）,但这不影响hamlet to be a noted masterpiece.
3. 一个艺术作品如果不是忠于作者的真实想法，而是为了迎合观众或者让大多数人理解，or was shaped by most people's opinion. 那它就很难有长久的价值。比如很多无聊的商业片，虽然被大多数人欢迎，但却不被评论家看好，很快就会被大家遗忘。
End: In sum, the merit of art has little bearing on whether most people understand it. 只要一个艺术作品只要是作者的真实情感、想法的表达，是作者创作灵感的真实体现，那它就是有价值的。
范文：
The speaker's assertion that art must be widely understood to have merit is wrongheaded. The speaker misunderstands the final objective of art, which has little to do with cognitive "understanding."
First consider the musical art form. The fact that the listener must "understand" the composer's artistic expression without the benefit of words or visual images forces us to ask: "What is there to understand in the first place?" Of course, the listener can always struggle to appreciate how the musical piece employs various harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic principles.
Yet it would be absurd to assert that the objective of music is to challenge the listener's knowledge of music theory. In fact, listening to music is simply an encounter--an experience to be accepted at face value for its aural impact on our spirit and our emotions.
Next consider the art forms of painting and sculpture. In the context of these art forms, the speaker seems to suggest that ifwe cannot all understand what the work is supposed to represent, then we should dismiss the work as worthless. Again, however, the speaker misses the point of art. Only by provoking and challenging us, and inciting our emotions, imagination, and wonder do paintings and sculpture hold merit. Put another way, if the test for meritorious art were its ability to be dearly understood by every observer, then our most valuable art would simply imitate the mundane physical world around us. A Polaroid picture taken by a monkey would be considered great art, while the abstract works of Pollock and Picasso would be worth no more than the salvage value of the materials used to create them.
Finally, consider art forms such as poetry, song, and prose, where the use of language is part-and-parcel of the art. It is easy to assume that where words are involved they must be strung together in understandable phrases in order for the art to have any merit. Moreover, if the writer-artist resorts exclusively to obscure words that people simply do not know, then the art can convey nothing beyond the alliterative or onomatopoeic impact that the words might have when uttered aloud. However, in poetry and song the writer-artist often uses words as imagery--to conjure up feelings and evoke visceral reactions in the reader or listener. In these cases stanzas and verses need not be "understood" to have merit, as much as they need be experienced for the images and emotions they evoke.
When it comes to prose, admittedly the writer-artist must use words to convey cognitive ideas--for example, to help the reader follow the plot of a novel. In these cases the art must truly be "understood" on a Linguistic and cognitive level; otherwise it is mere gibberish without merit except perhaps as a doorstop. Nevertheless, the final objective even of literature is to move the reader emotionally and spiritually--not simply to inform. Thus, even though a reader might understand the twists and turns of a novel's plot intellectually, what's the point if the reader has come away unaffected in emotion or spirit?
In the final analysis, whether art must be understood by most people, or by any person, in order for it to have merit begs the question. To "understand" art a person need only have eyes to see or ears to hear, and a soul to feel.
Orignal From: In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people
没有评论:
发表评论